The problem I see with this is how will you assure even adoption. Until a critical mass of people has this technology, it is basically useless. How do you get the numbers of people driving these kinds of cars up there to begin with?

In my opinion, making V2V systems legal and mandatory will make drivers more dependent on such systems and less attentive in their driving; and blaming the "system malfunction" whenever some accident happens, thereby claiming damages from insurance companies as well as from the "system" manufacturers.

Such systems are helpful only if they prevent the errant drivers from breaking the traffic rules and posing hazards to other drivers . So such systems should prevent a car to cross the red signal, force it to stop wherever there is a "STOP" sign., regulate the car speed automatically as per the speed limit zones and so on.

Well, you know, as long as there are still drivers behind the wheel, if V2V is incompatible or non-existent in a neighboring country, no big deal. You simply won't have the benefits of it.

Everyone should look up online videos, taken from cameras inside cars, of real-world traffic accidents. Some are truly spectacular. And there's almost nothing a human driver can do, all too often, to avoid the crash. V2V would prevent many of these, by alerting the driver of this erractic maniac about to cross over in your path. Really. Take a look.

There are different ways this could pan out. For all who have the libertarian streak, where government involvement automatically disqualifies the entire subject matter, the IEEE and IETF have done a fantastic job at enabling what I'm doing right now, with NO government involvement. So the auto companies and universtities can certainly pull this off on their own.

I'm convinced that in a few decades, people will be amazed that we ever drove without these new measures, using only our own eyes and ears. It will seem incredibly primitive and beyond reckless.

As to V2I, as discussed several times in other articles, that's a whole 'nother matter. I think it's essential for full automation, but V2V could certainly improve safety in the meantime.

Oh, and Kris, my USan PC seems to have no trouble communicating with UKan UBM, or reading your Canadian post!!

Junko, I live in Canada and drive to US fairly frequently...I would imagine that Mexico-US border is even more busy...so different "language" (or more likely car to car communication standards) is a remote possibility...after all you guys stick to miles and we use km, hundreds of years has passed and this simple issue has not been resolved! And now you want my car to talk to your car!! Imagine confusion if my calculates everything in meters and yours in inches...Kris

Can you imagine the chaos with all cars out there running different versions of the V2V software, and the chaos when 50% of them don't start some morning because they received an automatic update overnight that bricked their computers?

Ha, ha, Kris, "Speaking different languages!"I wouldn't go that far and be so pessimistic.

The technology has been tested for many years in Michigan. It's known to work. The issue is that this has been such a long process that some of us are worried that the window of opportunity to really leverage DSRC might be closing...

The testbed in Michigan does not include the use of other wireless technologies such as a driver's smartphones. Considering the progress of technologies these days, DSRC, if watied too long, could become a thing of the past.

All they need to do is enforce impaired driving laws more rigorously, and take licences away from people who have demonstrated that they aren't responsible enough to be trusted with one. This would have the side-benefit of increasing demand for public transportation, which in turn improves its quality, so people don't need to drive as much. Plus, you get the health benefits of having a population which walks more (to get to and from public transit), saving national health care costs. This is IMO a big reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans.

Now if people want to rob me and/or steal my car, all they have to do is spoof broken down cars ahead of me so my car stops itself, or trigger the kill switch.

The problem with cars is not that they are too simple and need myriad more failure modes. Can you imagine the chaos with all cars out there running different versions of the V2V software, and the chaos when 50% of them don't start some morning because they received an automatic update overnight that bricked their computers?